Regional Airport Terminal Access

[youngmic]

G'day All,

I am interested in other pilots thoughts on the subject of terminal access at country airports.

It appears in recent years there has been some significant federal, state and local government money spent on regional airport terminal upgrades. Money that you and I have obviously given to the government in the form of taxes, rates etc.

Yet many of these terminals remain closed and locked except for a few brief periods when a RPT flight graces the airport. To my thinking this is a regressive trend and clearly detracts from promoting GA as a smart, viable and safe means of travel throughout this vast country.

Country airports are there for use by all aviators and their passengers not just RPT ops.

Ceduna in SA is a stand out example, for many flyers its location is an almost essential landing point prior to or following a Nullabor crossing. It has a small but new terminal with clean toilets and a great little coffee machine yet it is inaccessible, the only alternative toilet is one single ramshackle dunny built from second hand colour bond tacked on the back of the terminal.

Port Augusta the same, Coober Pedy a little better but not by much.

What is going on, how have we allowed this to happen? I am moving to a mind set that will have me responding to their landing fee invoices with a polite "thanks for your invoice but I could not access your facilities"

How do we turn this around?

[rmcdonal]

It appears in recent years there has been some significant federal, state and local government money spent on regional airport terminal upgrades. Money that you and I have obviously given to the government in the form of taxes, rates etc.
True, your taxes pay for the terminal upgrades, however as increased traffic to regional centers comes with increased cash flow for the community it is seen as an investment.
Yet many of these terminals remain closed and locked except for a few brief periods when a RPT flight graces the airport. To my thinking this is a regressive trend and clearly detracts from promoting GA as a smart, viable and safe means of travel throughout this vast country.
As you said previously the government invested money in this infrastructure, to leave it unmanned is a sure way to have it vandalized, particularly considering the remote location of most regional airports. To keep it manned costs money. During RPT ops the terminal is staffed by both airport and airline staff reducing the risk of damage to the facilities. The cost of these staff is included in the airlines ticket (normally as an airport tax). To crew the terminal outside of hours would require someone to be paid to do it. As the number of movements per hour at most regional airports (requiring the use of the terminal) is minimal, the cost to cover it would be high per visit.
Country airports are there for use by all aviators and their passengers not just RPT ops.
True, and you can use the airport just the same as every other aircraft and airline.
I am moving to a mind set that will have me responding to their landing fee invoices with a polite "thanks for your invoice but I could not access your facilities" You pay for the upkeep of the runways and taxiways, not on access to the other facilities.

[Sunfish]

pee behind the hangar, that is what I do.

[AmarokGTI]

Coober Pedy terminal is available to all, with air con, TV, drinking water and free wifi. Can't really complain about that!

[AmarokGTI]

Don't talk to the cleaner at Coober tho, not unless you're a huge fan of fruitcake.

[RENURPP]

What about number 2?
In front of the terminal of course. It's not "manned" so you can't offend anyone! 😀😇😇😇

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Country airports are there for use by all aviators and their passengers not just RPT ops.

And the airport is available to all, however some buildings and infrastructure may not be, at the discretion of the Airport Operator. It's the wonderful world of user pays, and you are not the user. Perhaps a call ahead to check the status of the facilities and maybe ask how much would it cost for the facility to be made available for the use of you and your passengers during your stop?
I know when I was involved with a regional airport, the Terminal facilities was locked up between RPT flights, but we did provide a pretty good ablution block for the use of itinerants, however, this was constantly getting trashed and costing a fortune in maintenance, so we removed it.

[truthinbeer]

What about number 2?
Make sure that you carry toilet paper and soap.

[truthinbeer]

What about number 2?
Same as No.1 but make sure that you carry toilet paper and soap.

[rioncentu]

Terminals? meh - Least of your worries.

Look at Mackay - Just closed its cross runway forever.

Rocky appears to be in the process of something similar. Shortening perhaps.

[thorn bird]

Young Mic, it’s all about perceptions.

General aviation is perceived by the uninformed somewhat like those unkempt, unwashed individuals you see from time to time parked on the pavement outside a store on Main Street. They may have an old supermarket trolley parked next to them full of god knows what, or a decrepit little dog leashed with a piece of string, generally with a sign written on a piece of cardboard placed next to a hat on the ground in front of them.
Bureaucrats view GA much like those poor pathetic individuals, they are there, but you would really prefer them to just go away, and you definitely should remain upwind of them.

Governments and councils have to spend our money on something.

For Councils building new airport terminal buildings is a great way of dispersing money. They can claim it creates local employment, civic pride (our terminal is better than theirs) and creates an opportunity to invite pollies to official openings with a plaque on the wall with all their names on it.

Maybe they also harboured a vainglorious notion that a shiny new terminal might attract an airline to start an air service again, faint hope.

Back in the seventies, before aviation was regulated out of business most little country towns had an air service of some sort, where did all those forty years old navajo's still flying start their life?

Country folk are by and large practical intelligent people, they fully understood that their commuter airline was perhaps not as safe as Quaintasses shiny jets, but there was a need, and the small operator filled that need, provided a service, and their customers accepted the risks because country folk live with risk every day, they understood that their air service was far less chancy than their car and astute to the principle that time is money.

Bureaucrats unfortunately have no concept of time and money or service and need. The cost of a new terminal building is small change compared with the regulatory burden imposed by over regulation, servicing the need of the "mystic" of safety, an esoteric principle devoid of practicality promoted by the self-interest of an unaccountable few, to the detriment of a whole industry and by extension, the whole of society.

Why it that Australia endowed with innovative, inventive highly industrious individuals has very little in the way of aeronautical enterprises?

I think of Canada, Ireland, Brazil, all with massive aviation industries, even New Zealand powers ahead of Australia.

Our prime minister calls for us to use our innovative and entrepreneurial skills on one hand yet chooses to ignore the fact that his bureaucrats are busily building road blocks in the background stifling any chance that anything innovative would see the light of day.

Aviation was the test bed for OH&S excesses.

Bright young things with shiny new degrees dispersing from our universities across the country with their really really cool esoteric ideals creating havoc within what’s left of our industries, OH&S has become one of our nation’s biggest growth industries and we are all poorer for it.

But I digress, I apologise to all, its just that at times I allow my passion run away, that and why in god’s name is the country squandering our money on what to me defies logic, hundreds of millions of dollars on regulation that serves no purpose and shackles an industry, when regulations that do serve a purpose and achieve what they are intended for are available at a fraction of the cost.

But it was all about terminals wasn’t it.

Young mic, a few years ago I recall, when that other great money wasting institution called DOTARS was on the rise, another bright young thing with letters after their name dreamed up a really really cool money making enterprise called the ASIC card.

Someone with a lateral thinking practical bent suggested that to make it actually useful for something, a chip could be incorporated into the card. Terminals and access gates could then be fitted with swipe card readers to open them, the user recorded not just for security reasons but enabling terminal fees to be easily accredited to those that wanted to avail themselves of the service.

Unfortunately practicality was deemed impractical so GA is unfortunately reduced to that always embarrassing event, on occasion having to drag a ladder from the luggage locker so your plane load of millionaire tourists can clamber over the fence, standing guard while the ladies relieve themselves behind the tank stand beside the terminal.

As they say, Australia, the only third world country where you can drink the water.

[youngmic]

rmcdonal,

As you said previously the government invested money in this infrastructure, to leave it unmanned is a sure way to have it vandalized, particularly considering the remote location of most regional airports.

I would be keen to see any supporting evidence of this, at face value I would disagree. Many country terminals simply install a key code door access and this seems to work just fine, Renmark and Port Pirie to name just two, both have great amenities, both remote, both with snacks and nibbles with a honour tin for payment. They have both been doing it this way for an age so clearly your assumption has yet to deter them.

True, and you can use the airport just the same as every other aircraft and airline.

The whole point of this thread is that you cannot, your statement makes zero sense, sorry.

You pay for the upkeep of the runways and taxiways, not on access to the other facilities.

So you are saying the local shire takes money from landing fees and only allocates that to airside infrastructure, my landing fee does not go into a pot called general revenue from which money is then extracted for shire staff wages etc.. The same shire staff who attend to terminal upkeep.

You sure about that?

Thorn Bird

:ok::ok:

Our prime minister calls for us to use our innovative and entrepreneurial skills on one hand yet chooses to ignore the fact that his bureaucrats are busily building road blocks in the background stifling any chance that anything innovative would see the light of day.

I think you just nailed it right there.

The upside though is many are now seeing this and trying to redress it. The alternative to reform is becoming a clear and stark outlook.

Why it that Australia endowed with innovative, inventive highly industrious individuals has very little in the way of aeronautical enterprises?
Possibly because folk like rmcdonal walk amongst us and vote?? (Sorry RM but your "you can use the airport like the airlines" earned you that)


Swiftski

Coober Pedy terminal is available to all, with air con, TV, drinking water and free wifi. Can't really complain about that!

I stand corrected, I'll be there soon enough and give it another try.

[youngmic]

Traffic.I.E.W,

And the airport is available to all, however some buildings and infrastructure may not be, at the discretion of the Airport Operator. It's the wonderful world of user pays, and you are not the user. ..oh yes I am!Perhaps a call ahead to check the status of the facilities and maybe ask how much would it cost for the facility to be made available for the use of you and your passengers during your stop?

See here's the thing Traffic, Australia should by all rights be a leading aviation user country, unlike nearly any other country in the world but much like Canada, we are vast, sparsely populated (thankfully) wealthy and with little in the way of roads.

I take it by your presence here you have a positive feel for aviation, you see it as a good thing to do.

Whilst the motorcar has evolved over the decades from a 100 kph device to 100 kph device, the personal aircraft has gone from expensive to relatively cheap, from fuel hungry to economical and from 200kph to 350kph.

It just makes sense to promote its use, and having welcoming terminal facilities is integral. But hey lets just start with trying to balance on our hind legs before we break into a jog, hold the welcoming terminals, just allow access as a starting point.

[AmarokGTI]

Enjoy.
There's an alarm, but details of how to turn it off are listed on the door. Just need to know a secret code (CTAF) and it's all yours.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

And I will state it again, you, lobbing up in your Cherokee, are not the person who is paying for the terminal ie the user. The "head tax" paid by the airline passenger is what gives them access to the terminal and its facilities. The airlines pay for use of the runway, taxiways aprons etc, just like you do, but they also lease terminal space, and supply the passengers who pay the head tax. You don't. So if a council doesn't provide it for you, you haven't missed out on anything.

[youngmic]

Traffic.I.E.W.,

The "head tax" paid by the airline passenger is what gives them access to the terminal and its facilities.

If this is the case then there is some validity in not having access, but only some and the some is pretty small.

We need to go back to principals of primacy, I gave the money to council to build the terminal in the first place with out the "I's" ie, all of us tax payers there is no terminal.

As for the head tax to fund the ongoing terminal up keep well this could be a good point if it were good but it is not and here is the why...

Airport X has the technological way with all to charge me a landing fee at their airport. In your world Traffic.I.E.W. this is as far as I get, a begrudged landing ability and your way. Why did they not charge me a head tax as they did for the RPT passengers? Clearly they can charge a fee for landing so it follows they can charge me a tax for the terminal use too.

However they never gave me the opportunity.

Your position on this matter appears to be one that begrudges the presence of all other aviation activities outside of RPT ops. If this is the case then perhaps you are not the right person to be making comment here.

I have to ask when you fly around the country flying IFR in your sleek Glassair III do you not feel that you are owed some entitlelment to the facilities, particularly as your tax bill was over 200k last year? Perhaps you don't own a Glassair and only fly VFR in your Cherokee and earn a basic wage, the point remains the same however, doesn't it.

A country airport is more than just a runway and a taxi way to the bowser it is a facility for all aviation funded by Australian taxes for all of us to benefit from. It is not there just for the poorer folk who cannot afford their own aircraft and must resort to RPT to move them around.

If a particular airline wants exclusivity of use of the terminal I have no problem with that....as long as they pay for it upfront and don't impede the development of a second terminal for all of us to use.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I gave the money to council to build the terminal in the first place

Were you a rate payer? If not, you didn't.

all of us tax payers there is no terminal

I pay for Defence, but they won't let me fly an F/A-18.

Why did they not charge me a head tax as they did for the RPT passengers

Because the passenger buys a ticket, which includes an airport service charge. Thus the user is identified and targeted.

it follows they can charge me a tax for the terminal use too

Except that some itinerants don't want to use the terminal, so why should they pay? How does the airport operator know if you use the terminal? Honesty? Just like the VH-ABC's that avoid their landing fees?

perhaps you are not the right person to be making comment here

I have been involved in running a small country airport, so perhaps I am exactly the right person to be making comments. I can't help it if they do not support your argument.

particularly as your tax bill was over 200k last year

I wish! My taxes pay for a lot of stuff I can't use. Sorry to hear that you've only just realised yours do too.

earn a basic wage, the point remains the same however, doesn't it.

Yes, irrespective of your income, the point remains exactly the same.

A country airport ....is a facility for all aviation funded by Australian taxes

No it's not.

as long as (airlines) pay for it upfront and don't impede the development of a second terminal for all of us to use

They do pay (some begrudgingly), and they would not impede, in fact they would fight tooth and nail not to pay for a facility they wouldn't use. They understand user pays. On the other hand, feel free to pop some cash in an envelope and drop your contribution off to the refueller next time.

Mate, I can see where you are coming from, to an extent I agree with you, and in an ideal world it would be that way, but in reality, it's not the 60's anymore, and it is patently uneconomic for most small airport operators based on the numbers of itinerants that pass through these days.

[youngmic]

Traffic.I.E.W.

Yes I'm a rate payer x 3.

The local terminal was funded by 40% federal, 40% state and 20% local government money, I suspect many are similar.

Mate, I can see where you are coming from, to an extent I agree with you, and in an ideal world it would be that way, but in reality, it's not the 60's anymore, and it is patently uneconomic for most small airport operators based on the numbers of itinerants that pass through these days.


Why??

Many small and large town airport terminals allow access to their terminals through a key coded entrance, simple.

What greater cost would be incurred by those that presently don't if they fitted a key pad lock?

Given the economic value to the community of charter, the multitude of AWK operations, including aeromed, Ag, fire bombing, freight sevices, recreational aviation etc. etc. all of whom are denied access to a number of these terminals it appears you have a narrow view of aviation. With your stated involvement in running an airport it seems you may have developed a view that anything other than scheduled RPT movements get in the way of the important business of running a smooth airport operation.

How much flying do you actually do?

A country airport ....is a facility for all aviation funded by Australian taxes
No it's not.


WTF!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

20% local government money Do they let you in? Do they invite any of the other rate payers out to enjoy the facilities, irrespective of whether they fly or not? Some things are paid for by the many, for the use of a few. Most people understand that. My council got a government grant to put towards a swimming pool. The council, ie rate payers, paid the rest. Some of those rate payers don't use it, those that do still have to pay, and when it's not manned, it's locked up. If someone driving through town wants to have a swim, then they pay, or if it's not open, they can't swim. Sound familiar? As an aside, when it is open, you can't just walk in and use the toilets, but you can at the airport when the terminal is open, so there's a bonus for you.

Many small and large town airport terminals allow access to their terminals through a key coded entrance

By extension, many don't. Their choice.

What greater cost would be incurred by those that presently don't if they fitted a key pad lock?

I don't know. Maybe they've tried it and it didn't work for them. Contrary to popular belief, airports don't make much money, especially small ones. Many are only just viable. It doesn't take much to make something uneconomic. There wouldn't be a public toilet (and that's basically what we are talking about with you wanting to use the terminal) that makes money. If the council makes an alternative available for free use, good on them, but I bet it won't be too flash.

charter, the multitude of AWK operations, including aeromed, Ag, fire bombing, freight sevices, recreational aviation

All of these, if based at the airport, will have their own facilities (and usually closed to the public/itinerant traveller as well). If there was enough movements to warrant it, there would almost certainly be some public facilities provided. If not, then there won't. Economic value? Very hard to quantify, which is why GA is held in the low regard it is. Unfortunate fact of life is the facilities go where the money is.

scheduled RPT movements get in the way of the important business of running a smooth airport operation.

I have no favourites, but like it or not, their ops pay most of the bills. They have a lot of clout. youngmic arriving once doesn't. However he likes to think he does, but he is often disappointed.

How much flying do you actually do?

None as a pilot actually, which probably renders my input as now below consideration by you, but I fail to see the relevancy of the question. I've travelled to a few places as pax on charters and private flights though, and not having access to the terminals at our landing places has never caused anyone to get bent out of shape.

WTF!

Lol. Running an airport (or a council) of any size is a business now. Just like Airservices. There's no Department ladling out the cash any more. There is a very fine line between what things cost, and what you can recover. Back in the days when I used to go to the Airports Association meetings (it was only regional airports as members then) one of the major topics of discussion every time was: is having an airport even sustainable by local councils? The books have to balance, the majority, if not all, of income is internally derived, and so user pays (just like the swimming pool).

[rmcdonal]

I would be keen to see any supporting evidence of this, at face value I would disagree. Many country terminals simply install a key code door access and this seems to work just fine, Renmark and Port Pirie to name just two, both have great amenities, both remote, both with snacks and nibbles with a honour tin for payment. They have both been doing it this way for an age so clearly your assumption has yet to deter them. Well I am happy for Renmark and Port Pirie. I will simply back up my statement with Traffic_Is_Er_Was I know when I was involved with a regional airport, the Terminal facilities was locked up between RPT flights, but we did provide a pretty good ablution block for the use of itinerants, however, this was constantly getting trashed and costing a fortune in maintenance, so we removed it.
True, and you can use the airport just the same as every other aircraft and airline.
The whole point of this thread is that you cannot, your statement makes zero sense, sorry.
Can you land, take off, taxi, park? The only thing you can't do is go to the terminal when it is not open, which funnily enough the RPT can't do either. So they organise to have it open, they employ staff to supervise and they pay the council separately to their landing fees for the use of the building.


Quote:
You pay for the upkeep of the runways and taxiways, not on access to the other facilities.
So you are saying the local shire takes money from landing fees and only allocates that to airside infrastructure, my landing fee does not go into a pot called general revenue from which money is then extracted for shire staff wages etc.. The same shire staff who attend to terminal upkeep.
No you are right it probably all goes into consolidated revenue. However prior to even setting the fees the airport would have calculated its operating cost based on a projected number of movements per year, it then divides up the total costs based to the number of movements (normally with a different weighting based on the size of the aircraft) and charges users accordingly. All of that money then money goes to the Council who then pay for the operating costs of the airport. Sometimes it covers the costs, sometimes it breaks even, sometimes it costs the council money. The cost of operating the terminal however is billed separately, this can be done several different ways but I would suggest it is probably based on something like an opening fee, and a usage fee based on the number of passengers. These fees may or may not cover the actual cost of the terminal depending on if the council wishes to attract lower airfares. So you may well be subsidizing the terminal for the airlines by paying your council rates, however as others have said you pay for lots of things in your taxes that you don't get to use that have a positive outcome on your community.
You can contact the council in question and ask for the terminal to be opened, you may even be able to do it via the ground agents for the airlines that operate there. It may come with a cost (or maybe even not, maybe they just need notice so the guy cutting the grass can come over and unlock the door). That cost may not seem fair when spread among the 3-4 people in your average Cessna, or even 10-12 in a Chieftain or Titan.

Why it that Australia endowed with innovative, inventive highly industrious individuals has very little in the way of aeronautical enterprises?
Possibly because folk like rmcdonal walk amongst us and vote?? (Sorry RM but your "you can use the airport like the airlines" earned you that)
I have flown to places with locked terminals, I have contacted aerodrome operators to have them opened, I have paid call out fees (well lets be honest the boss paid those fees), I have been to places where the terminal was not able to be opened, I have flown to and from regional airports in Light singles, medium piston twins, corporate jets, and in the Airlines.
I can see why it would be nice to have them open all the time and to everyone, and I have also seen why this sometimes doesn't work.
However If you think that being an innovative industrious enterprise includes having a valuable asset left untended in a remote location with a tin and a note saying "Please be honest $5 for the bathroom" then I have a monorail you may wish to purchase.